Writ Petition No. 18098 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18098 OF 2018 (CS-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. T. S. RAVINDRA S/O. LATE T. G. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, EX-PRESIDENT OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R/O. NO. 279, 10TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, B.C.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. 2. SRI. NARASIMHARAJU S/O. LATE BALANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, EX-PRESIDENT OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R/O. 1ST FLOOR, NO. 89, 7TH MAIN ROAD, V.R. LAYOUT, GOKULA, BANGALORE-560 054. 3. SRI. K. T. GANAPATHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS EX-VICE PRESIDENT OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., RESIDING AT NO. 19, "THARANGINI" NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 094. 4. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., RESIDING AT NO. 13, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENT, NO.51, 6TH "A" CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. 5. SRI. JANARDHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS EX-DIRECTOR OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., RESIDING AT NO.15, "OMSATHYA SAI KRUPA", 4TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 094. 6. SRI. H. T. KUMARASWAMY S/O. LATE H. C. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, EX-PRESIDENT OF NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R/O. NO. 528, 3RD BLOCK, 8TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANAYAPURA, BANGALORE-560 097. (BY SRI. V.P. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) AND ...PETITIONERS 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION, BENGALURU-560 018, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. 2. THE INQUIRY OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 2ND REGION, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 BANGALORE-560 003. 3. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP BY ITS SECRETARY NO. 84, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, KUMARPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. 4. ACHAIAH T.C. S/O CHANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O NO. 8052, SHOBA CRYS ANTHEMUM SRK NAGAR POST, THANISANDRA, BANGALORE-560077.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. DEVIPRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) …. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JRB/SECTION 64/25/2016-17 DTD BANGALORE REGION 06.04.2018 VIDE ANNX-Q. AND ETC. IN THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.03.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To Quash the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Region in JRB/Section 64/25/2016-17 dated 06.04.2018 vide Annexure-Q and the order passed by the Joint - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Region JRB/Section 64/25-2016-17 dated 26.03.2018 vide Annexure-P; in b. Pass such other order or orders as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claim to be members and ex-office bearers of NTI Housing Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as “a Society”). Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were ex-directors and also ex-presidents of the society, Petitioner No.3 is the ex-director and vice-president of the society, Petitioners No.4 to 6 were all ex-directors. The society was registered under the provision of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred toas “KCS Act”) with the principal object of providing residential sites to its members. 3. In the year 2005, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (JRCS), on receipt of a complaint from Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Layout Site Allottees Welfare Association and after taking a report from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (DRCS) passed an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 order to hold an enquiry under Section 64 of the KCS Act. The DRCS held an enquiry on several charges and submitted a report. The JRCS did not issue the copy of the report to the society or any other persons but had directed a fresh enquiry vide order dated 03.09.2007 the matter was not pursued further under Section 64 of the KCS Act, on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted properly and the additional charges as directed to be included by the DRCS have not been included in the enquiry by the DRCS. 4. The matter was not pursued further, since certain lands were required to be acquired, it is alleged that the landowners using their political influence got the JRCS to initiate an enquiry under Section 64, as regards which an order had been passed on 15.11.20211. The society had challenged the same in WP No.46957 of 2011, the government during the pendency of the writ petition withdrew the order dated 5.11.2011 recording the same this Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 disposed of the said writ petition, with liberty being reserved to take action in accordance with law. 5. On 18.01.2012, the JRCS issued another order to hold an enquiry under Section 64 of the KCS Act, on account of complaints having been received. The society filed another writ petition in WP No.4170 of 2012. It is alleged that on the basis of oral instructions issued by this Court respondent No.1 did not precipitate the matter, till the year 2014, when a certain person claiming to be members of the society filed complaint before Respondent No.1 to take action against the directors under Section 29C, these allegations are similar to those which form part of the order under Section 64 of the KCS Act. 6. The complainants contending that JRCS had not considered the recommendations/complaint had approached this Court, when this Court directed
Decision
JRCS to disposed of the same in accordance with law within three months. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 7. On 22.02.2016, an order was passed for holding an enquiry under Section 65 of the KCS Act. Thereafter, an enquiry was held under Section 29C of the KCS Act and an order was passed on 30.04.2015 disqualifying the directors. Pursuant thereto, a Special Officer was appointed under Section 30 of the KCS Act on 02.05.2016, challenging the order under Section 29C, an appeal having been filed an interim order of stay was granted. It is thereafter that the society challenged the action of JRCS in directing an enquiry under Section 65 in WP No.30531 of 2016, which came to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2016. 8. Six of the directors have been forced to resign by Respondent No.1 on the ground that there was no quorum the JRCS appointed a Special Officer on 14.12.2016. The Secretary of the Society on the instruction of the Special Officer withdrew WP No.4170 of 2012 and WP No.30531 of 2016. Subsequent thereto, a combined order under Section - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 64 and 65 of the KCS Act was passed appointing the DRCS as the enquiry officer on 02.03.2017. The directors submitted all the documents requested of by the enquiry officer who submitted a report on 27.11.2017 and placed the same before Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 did not send copy of the report to society but rejected the same on the ground that certain charges have not been enquired into by the enquiry officer vide its order dated 26.03.2018 and on 06.04.2018 ordered to hold Section 64 enquiry in respect of 28 charges. It is challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 9. The submission of Sri.V.P.Kulkarni., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that; 9.1. Under Section 64 of the KCS Act, once an enquiry is conducted by a particular officer appointed by the Registrar, the Registrar cannot reject the enquiry report and order for a fresh enquiry. He submits that the DRCS having been - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 appointed by the Registrar to conduct the enquiry, enquiry report having been submitted by the DRCS, there is no scope for the Registrar or the JRCS to reject the report since the DRCS steps into the shoes of the Registrar/JRCS and there is no option but to accept the report as submitted, the report can only be challenged by the aggrieved party. The Registrar cannot be said to be an aggrieved party and as such it is the petitioners alone who could have challenged the report once accepted by the Registrar. 9.2. His submission is that society has been made to suffer multiple enquiries resulting in multiple proceedings. The enquiry report having been submitted by the DRCS ought to have been accepted by the JRCS instead of directing a further enquiry. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement reported in (1998) 7 SCC 162, more particularly para 14, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 14. There is no dispute that by notifications of the Government of Orissa (Revenue Department) dated 16-10-1971 and 17-2-1972, the above revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under Sections 6- D, 15, 25 and 32 have been delegated to the Commissioner, under Section 33 of the Settlement Act, 1958. That section reads as follows: of Delegation “33. powers.—The Government may by notification, delegate the powers of the Board of Revenue to an officer not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Commissioner.” Therefore, the Commissioner could, as delegate of the Board, exercise revisional powers of the Board of Revenue falling under Section 15. 24. Thus, the Board would be certainly entitled to exercise review powers under Section 7 of the 1951 Act in respect of orders passed in its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 6-D, 15, 25 and 32 of the 1958 Act. To this extent, we approve the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Ramakanta v. Gaji Pratap Singh [(1974) 40 Cut LT 917]. Can the Board revise orders passed by its delegate, the Commissioner? 25. We have to note that the Commissioner when he exercises power of the Board delegated to him under Section 33 of the Settlement Act, 1958, the order passed by him is to be treated as an order of the Board of Revenue and not as that of the Commissioner in his capacity as Commissioner. This position is clear from two rulings of this Court to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 which we shall presently refer. The first of the said rulings is the one decided by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Roop Chand v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1503 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 539] . In that case, it was held by the majority that where the State Government had, under Section 41(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention its of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, delegated appellate powers vested in it under Section 21(4) to an “officer”, an order passed by such an officer was an order passed by the State Government itself and “not an order passed by any officer under this Act” within Section 42 and was not revisable by the State Government. It was pointed out that for the purpose of exercise of powers of revision by the State under Section 42 of that Act, the order sought to be revised must be an order passed by an officer in his own right and not as a delegate of the State. The State Government was, therefore, not entitled under Section 42 to call for the records of the case which was disposed of by an officer acting as its delegate. under the Custodian General 26. A like question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 37] to which one of us (Majmudar, J.) was a party. In that case, the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 acting under Section 55 could delegate his powers to the Deputy or Assistant Custodian General. The Custodian passed an order on 11-11-1982 and submitted the same for approval of the Assistant Custodian — the delegated authority. The latter approved the same. Against the said order of approval passed by the delegate, the State of U.P. filed a revision under Section 27 of the Act before the Custodian General. The Custodian General held that he could not pass any order as the impugned order was one passed by his delegate. The High - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 Court disagreed with the view and remanded the case to the Custodian General. This Court allowed the appeals and held that the Custodian General was right in holding that the revision to him under Section 27 was incompetent. It was held that if a revision were it would tantamount to exercising a power of review which did not flow from Section 27. In that case, this Court followed Roop Chand v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1503 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 539] . to be entertained, 27. The basis of the above cases is that the order of the delegate is to be treated, for all intents and purposes, as an order of the principal itself here, the Board of Revenue, and hence the Board cannot revise an order passed by the delegate, the Commissioner. Can the Board review an order passed by its delegate, the Commissioner? 28. It may be argued that if the order of the delegate is tantamount to the order of the principal, then the principal can review such an order of the delegate. This appears to be plausible at first blush but is, in our opinion, not correct because of the fundamental principle intervention of another relating to “review” of orders. The important principle that has to be kept in mind here is that a review application is to be made only to the same Judge or if he is not physically available, to his successor. 9.3. By relying on Commissioner of Land Records and Settlements case, he submits that once there is a delegation made of the power vested - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 with the Registrar to the DRCS. The orders passed by the delegate cannot be revised by the delegator. Any order passed by the DRCS ought to be treated as an order passed by the Registrar. Therefore, the Registrar cannot review, revise or set aside the enquiry report submitted by the DRCS, which is a report actually conducted and submitted by the Registrar. Once an enquiry report is submitted by a delegate for all intended purposes, the same is to be treated as an enquiry report submitted by the principal and as such the same cannot be reviewed by the principal. 9.4. On the above grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed, and the prayers sought for granted. 10. Learned AGA would rely on the decision of this Court dated 12.11.2024 in WP No.14468 of 2020 to contend that the Registrar has the necessary power - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 to reject the report which has been submitted and on such rejection direct a fresh enquiry. 11. Heard Sri.V.P.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Yogesh Naik., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.Deviprasad Shetty., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and 4. Perused papers. 12. The points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the Registrar has the power to reject an enquiry conducted by a person appointed by the Registrar and direct a fresh enquiry? 2. What order? 13. I answer the above points as under 14. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Registrar has the power to reject an enquiry conducted by a person appointed by the Registrar and direct a fresh enquiry? 14.1. Section 64 of the KCS Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 64. Inquiry by Registrar. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 (1)The Registrar may, of his own motion, by himself or by a person authorised by him, by order in writing, hold an inquiry into [any matter specified in the order touching] [Inserted by Act 19 of 1976 w.e.f. 20.01.1976.] the constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. (2)An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub- section (1) shall be held on the application of,- (a)a co-operative society to which the society concerned is affiliated; (b)a majority of the members of the committee of the society; or(c)not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society.(2A)[ An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed [within a period of twelve months which may however be extended [by the Registrar for the reasons to be recorded in writing] [Inserted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.] for a further period of six months]] (3)The Registrar, or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of an inquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:- (a)he shall, at all times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same at any public office at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 (b)he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs of society, to appear before him at any public office at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath; and time and place at (c)(i)he may, notwithstanding any rule or bye-law specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the [office bearers] [Substituted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.] of the society to call a general meeting at such the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be [office directed by him, and where bearers] [Substituted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.] of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting he shall have power to call it himself;(ii)any meeting called under clause (i) shall have the powers of the general meeting called under the bye-laws of the society and its proceeding shall be regulated by such bye-laws except that no quorum shall be necessary for such meeting. the (4)When an inquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the inquiry to the society and to the co-operative society, if any, to which that society is affiliated [and also the Director of Co-operative Audit] [Inserted by Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 15.08.1998.]. to 14.2. The Registrar may, of his own motion by himself or by a person authorised by him by order in writing, hold an inquiry into any matter specified in the order touching the constitution, - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 working and financial condition of the corporate society. Thus, the Registrar may of his own motion by himself or by a person authorised by him can conduct an enquiry. 14.3. If the Registrar were to conduct the inquiry by himself, the question of the Registrar rejecting his own enquiry report would not arise. 14.4. The Registrar in the present matter has directed the DRCS to hold an enquiry which he is authorised to do under Sub-section (1) of Section 64 KCS Act. The DRCS after conducting the enquiry had submitted a report which the Registrar did not accept but to the contrary rejected on the ground that all the charges have not been enquired into and issued a fresh order directing an enquiry into those charges. 14.5. The submission of Sri.V.P.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in Commissioner of land records and settlement’s case is that the action of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 the delegates is that of the principal and therefore the same cannot be either revised or reviewed. Para 14 of the said judgment has been extracted hereinabove. In the said para 14, the extract of Section 33 is made which was the subject matter of the said judgment. 14.6. A perusal of Section 33 thereof would indicate that the government may by notification delegate the powers of the Board of Revenue to an officer not below the rank of a Revenue Division Commissioner. Thus, the delegation in that matter was a statutory delegation as provided under the Settlement Act 1958, where the powers of the Board of Revenue were delegated to a commissioner and it is the Commissioner who exercised such power to pass such orders and take such action as the Board of Revenue could do. 14.7. The said action of the Commissioner was reviewed by the Board of Revenue as provided - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 in Section 7 of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act 1951, said section 7 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 7. Power of Board to review any order. (1)The Board may either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of the Board, review any order passed by itself and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit :Provided that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order. (2)Every application under Sub-section (1) for a review of any order shall be made within three months from the date of the order: Provided that the Board may in its discretion in any case extend such period, if sufficient reasons be shown for so doing, 14.8. It is excising his powers under Section 7, that the Board reviewed the order of the Commissioner. It is on that basis that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the delegate having passed an order, the Board of Revenue could not review the order. Only the Commissioner delegatee can review it since a - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 review can be made by the very same person/authority who has passed the order. 14.9. That judgement in my considerate opinion would not apply to the present facts and situation. The delegation to the Commissioner of Land Records was a statutory delegation in terms of Section 33 thereof. 14.10. In the present matter, it is not delegation per se, it is the Registrar who has directed the DRCS to hold an inquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 64. Sub-section (2A) provides for the period within which the enquiry is to be held, Sub-section (3) of Section 64 provides the powers of the Registrar to the person authorised by him to conduct the enquiry and submit a report. 14.11. Thereafter, Sub-section (4) provides for the manner in which the inquiry report has to be dealt with by the Registrar. The Registrar cannot practically hold enquiry in all matters, it - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 is for that reason that he is empowered to nominate an enquiry officer and as such in the present case has nominated the DRCS. 14.12. The DRCS is an officer who reports to the Registrar, the enquiry report was therefore provided by the DRCS to the Registrar. The Registrar on going through the enquiry report came to a conclusion that it has not been carried out as per his instructions and/or as required under law and therefore rejected the report and directed a further enquiry. 14.13. This rejected report submitted by the DRCS, in my considered opinion cannot be said to be a report of the Registrar. The Registrar having directed a subordinate to hold an enquiry, it is for the Registrar to accept the report or not. Merely because the DRCS has carried out the enquiry, does not mean that he would step into the shoes of the Registrar as contended by Sri.V.P.Kulkarni. The claim that there is a - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 delegation is not sustainable, here the Registrar has only nominated the DRCS to hold an enquiry. The ultimate obligation being on the Registrar to forward the copy of the report under Sub-section (4) of Section 64. Sub- section (4) does not empower the person authorised by the Registrar to conduct the enquiry to send an enquiry report. I am of the opinion that the supervisory power of the Registrar would continue over the DRCS enquiry officer and it is upto the Registrar to forward the report or not. 14.14. It is the Registrar alone who can decide to send a copy of the enquiry report and communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and also the director of co-operative audit. If at all, the enquiry officer nominated by a Registrar would step into the shoes of the Registrar, then Sub- section (4) would have authorised such enquiry - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 officer to forward the copy of the report and not require the Registrar to forward the report. 14.15. In that view of the matter and for all the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the enquiry officer appointed by the Registrar would not step into the shoes of the Registrar or would not substitute the Registrar. The Registrar would continue to have supervisory power over the enquiry officer appointed by him as also have the right to reject the report submitted by the enquiry officer appointed by him, and direct fresh enquiry. 14.16. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that the Registrar has the power to reject an enquiry conducted by a person appointed by the Registrar and direct a fresh enquiry. 15. Answer to point No.2: What order? - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16097 WP No. 18098 of 2018 15.1. In view of my answer to point No.1, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. 15.2. The enquiry is directed to be conducted in terms of Section 64 as expeditiously as possible and the report submitted within the timelines prescribed therein. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3